Welcome

Readers write here

READERS MAY LOG IN AND CONTRIBUTE THEIR IDEAS HERE. WE WELCOME SUGGESTIONS AND CRITICISM. WE WANT TO GROW.
THOSE WHO WANT TO WRITE, ARE REQUESTED TO CONTRIBUTE IN THE SPACE PROVIDED. IT WILL HELP IF YOU CAN PLEASE MENTION YOUR E MAIL ID, SO THAT READERS CAN ALSO DIRECTLY COMMUNICATE WITH FELLOW PENSIONERS.

Name:
Email:
Website:
Subject:
Icon:
Message:
 
Antispam:
Which is the third character in the alphabet?
 

There are 569 entries available on

< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 >

suresh chhatre PF no 1330381 wrote at 24-05-2015 7:32 pm:

 HL
please advice whether retired SBI staff can avail HL at the staff rate?
 
Comment: Dear Mr Chhatre,

If an employee had availed of a housing loan while in service, he may opt to continue the loan at staff rate. He is not entitled to get a fresh loan at staff rate, after retirement.

KESHAV RAI SAINI (Website) wrote at 24-05-2015 6:58 pm:

 7th bipartite--state bank of india & others v/s lina ghosh&others.
FOR THE PERSONAL ATTENTION OF SHRI SUJOY KUMAR GHOSH------AS YOU ARE FOLLOWING UP THIS COURT CASE AS SUCH YOU ARE REQUESTED TO VERIFY WHETHER SHRI SALIL KUMAR GHOSH HAD GOT THE REVISION OF PENSION ON 7TH BIPARTITE SCALES DURING LIFE TIME AND ALSO HE HAD GIVEN VAKALAT NAMA TO THE DISPUTED LAWER AT ANY STAGE BEFORE LODGING CLAIM BY THE LEGAL HEIRS.KINDLY APPARISE FOR THE INFORMATION OF PENSIONERS.
K.R.SAINI
 
Comment: Dear Mr Saini,

We are sorry we could not respond promptly. You must have since gone through the reply of Mr Sujoy Ghosh, clarifying the position aptly.

Sujoy Ghosh (Website) wrote at 24-05-2015 12:08 am:

 7th.BPs-Lina Ghosh vs SBI-CHC-order of the 29th.April 2015
Quotes from the order:'the authority complied with the said order and the original respondent no.1 enjoyed the benefit of the said order till his death'.The Bank,through it's lawyer lied to the Court.'Even if it was revised as per the order of the learned Judge,the widow would not get the full benefit'.Another lie-the widow would get the arrears from the date of retirement till the demise of her husband and the interest thereon would benefit her/family.'We direct the Bank to extend the benefit to the widow and the children,as the case may be as per service rules'Late Salil Ghosh was not paid pension on the last 12 months calculations/formula.The Respondent's lawyer is Haradhan Bannerjee and not Hiranmoy Bhattacharjee as mentioned in the order.The Bank put up a dummy to get this order in it's favour and misled the Hon'ble Court.The order of the single Judge Bench of Justice Nadira Pathreya of Calcutta High Court is referred to,which was similar to the Jaipuriar order of Div. Bench of the Delhi High Court. Sujoy Ghosh
 
Comment: Dear Sujoy,

Thanks a lot for the detailed clarification. Please keep in touch.

Tirath.Dodwani wrote at 23-05-2015 9:39 pm:

 10 BPS
Is there any demand fullfilled in the 10 BPS regarding pensioners.
 
Comment: Dear Mr Dodwani,

The 10th Bipartite settlement will, fulfil, either partially, or fully, the expectations of only those who fall in its purview, i.e. those who retired after Nov, 2012.

V MADHAVAN wrote at 23-05-2015 7:23 pm:

 7th BIPARTITE RETIREES AND DECISION SALIL KUMAAR GHOSH - CHC
It is requested that the administrator or one of the readers of these columns,will please clarify if the following recordings of the Division Bench of CHC in their order dated 29-04-2015 that "in 2012 the Bank was, however, not able to obtain any interim order of stay. Hence, the authority complied with the said order and the original respondent no. 1 enjoyed the benefit of the said order till his death.": is true or not. When the DB of CHC has categorically recorded that late SK Ghosh enjoyed the benefit of order dated 13th September, 2012 by the Hon'ble JUSTICE PATHERYA, the averments of Mr Parthasarathy contradicts the Order of 29-04-2015 issued by the DB of CHC. Kindly bear with me and explain the true position.
 
Comment: Dear Mr Madhavan,

We are sorry that we could not respond earlier. Mr Sujoy Ghosh, who has been keenly following up this case, has since furnished detailed clarifications, which we feel, should suffice.

R.Parthasarathy wrote at 23-05-2015 6:00 pm:

 CHC case- Mr.Salil Ghosh
The verdict has been in favour of the legal heirs of Mr.Salil Ghosh. As pointed out by the Editor, there is no anomaly with respect to family pension being received by Mrs.Salil Ghosh since the family pension has already been linked to revised basic pay under 7th bipartite settlement. Agreed. But, till the passing away of Mr.Salil Ghosh, the arrears due to revised calculations also have to be released to Mrs.Salil Ghosh. In short, the bank now has to undo the injustice done to us all and revise the basic pension on the basis of the average of the last 12 months' salary. Incidentally, the bank also has already taken up this issue with the GOI. Hopefully, we may expect an early settlement of this issue.
 
Comment: Dear Mr Parthasarathy,

Even if the verdict of Calcutta High Court is not appealed against by the Bank and/or the Govt., the case was not representative in nature, and hence the verdict can be only quoted in separate petitions by affected pensioners.

On the positive side, the GOI has given indications of resolving the 7th Bipartite anomaly, either on its own, or at the instance of Court.

dhanabalan wrote at 23-05-2015 5:10 pm:

 pensioners plight
I request the commentator to accept crticism and guide the members constructively instead of derogatory comments.Please visit aibrf who have met speaker of parliament. Also visit aiparc who have issued 32 circulars in 2014 and in 2015 22 . Please appreciate knowledge. I always mean inaction the non performance and achieve the desired goal. This comment of mine comes in the wake of your acceptance that we have been cheated enough.With best wishes and regards.
 
Comment: Dear Mr Dhanabalan,

Please go back to your original comment and our response. You will observe that we have not made any derogatory remarks against anyone. In fact, we had politely requested you to refrain from submitting controversial posts.
We shall not complicate matters by making any further comments. We reiterate that this website should not be made a platform for belittling others.

KESHAV RAI SAINI (Website) wrote at 23-05-2015 6:11 am:

 COURT CASE NOW.P(C) 1875/2013
AS PER WEB SITE OF DELHI HIGH COURT THE ABOVE NOTED PENSIONERS' FEDERATION CASE HAS BEEN LISTED IN THE REGULAR CAUSE LIST DATED 25.05.2015 AT SERIAL NO 102 AT DELHI HIGH COURT.
K.R.SAINI
 
Comment: Dear Mr Saini,

We can only hope for the best. The present Bench has informally declared its inability to take up this case within May, 2015.

KESHAV RAI SAINI (Website) wrote at 22-05-2015 11:17 pm:

 7th BIPARTITE RETIREES
AS PER CALCUTTA HIGH COURT WEB SITE APO 351/2013 STATE BANK OF INDIA V/S LEENA GHOSH AND OTHERS(LEGAL HEIRS OF SHRI SALIL KUMAR GHOSH (DECEASED) )HAS DECLARED THE JUDGEMENT BY A DOUBLE BENCH ON 29.04.2015 IN FAVOUR OF LEGAL HEIRS And also direct the bank to pay the family pension as per service rules. as you are aware this case relates to an award staff employee who retired on30.11.2001 during 7th bipartite settlement and a single judge gave verdict in favour of shri salil kumar ghosh in 2012 and bank appeal against this judgement in 2013 this judgement now decided by the double bench in favour of legal heirs.
k.r.saini
 
Comment: Dear Mr Saini,

What the late Mr Salil Ghosh had wanted was pension as per 7th Bipartite salary.

After his death, the issue has changed to Family Pension at the applicable rates. But as there is no anomaly, (the Bank having revised family pension of 7th Bipartite retirees, while continuing to pay pension to them according to 6th Bipartite salary), regarding the Family Pension of 7th Bipartite retirees, it is not clear whether this a victory.

We are however examining the situation.

V MADHAVAN wrote at 22-05-2015 6:50 pm:

 7th BIPARTITE RETIREES
IV. The retirees can also claim interest for the injustice as established by the recordings of Division Bench of CHC in M.A.T. No. 971 of 2009 With C.A.N. 9323 of 2009 & C.O.T. No. 78 of 2009 Mihir Kumar Nandi & Anr. The Division Bench of DHC in PenFed case is examining the vires of Rule 23 (2) of the Pension Rules framed by the State Bank of India. Until and otherwise the attention of the Division Bench is invited to the injustice heaped on the 7th Bipartite Retirees, they are unlikely to examine this issue. Pen Fed could consider filing an interim application highlighting the plight of the 7th Bipartite Retirees. Readers are welcome to reach me on my Email id: vmadhavan67 [at] yahoo [dot] in.
 

V MADHAVAN wrote at 22-05-2015 6:46 pm:

 7th BIPARTITE RETIREES
II. In this Order CHC has recorded that the bank, being aggrieved, preferred the instant appeal. In 2012 the Bank was, however, not able to obtain any interim order of stay. Hence, the authority complied with the said order and the original respondent no. 1 enjoyed the benefit of the said order till his death. Mr. Sujoy Ghosh informed Mr.Saini on 24-03-2015 that the single Judge bench which gave the order in favour of late S K Ghosh had imposed a penalty of Rs.5000/- on the Bank, for the delaying tactics.

III. The Hon'ble JUSTICE PATHERYA on13th September, 2012 while disposing the W.P.No.1317 of 2009 filed by SRI SALIL KUMAR GHOSH has recorded “In the instant case, 1995 Regulations have no application as the employees of the State Bank of India are governed by the 1955 Pension Rules. Therefore, they belong to a separate class and their pensionary benefits are to be governed by the 1955 Rules.” The CHC has directed the Bank to revise the pension computation on the 7th Bipartite salary of late Mr. SK Ghosh. The computation of pension on 7th bipartite wage settlement to one of the 7th Bipartite retirees stands established.
 

V MADHAVAN wrote at 22-05-2015 6:44 pm:

 7th BIPARTITE RETIREES
I. Apropos the comments on 7th May 2015 to the suggestion of Mr Parthasarathy and Mr. Tandon to prefer claims for the revised computation of pension on the seventh wage revision. The chances of the Bank playing delaying tactics, when a claim is based on the order of the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Mr. Kiran Kumar Jaipuriar [Jharkhand] case, may not be ruled out. But when the 7th bipartite superannuation retirees claim under the Order of the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court on 28 04 2015 in disposing APO No. 351 of 2013 WP No. 1317 of 2003, the claims could not be stalled by the Bank. The 7th bipartite SBIVRS retirees could see the decision of Supreme Court in the Civil appellate jurisdiction Civil Appeal No.2463 of 2015 [Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 3686 OF 2007]
All the orders and judgments referred to herein could be accessed on the judgment information system [judic(dot)nic(dot)in] of the respective courts.
 

Anil K Saxena wrote at 22-05-2015 5:18 pm:

 10th BPS
Dear Friends,
Once the 10th BPS is signed on 25th May ,let us examine what would be the impact to a Pensioner retiring under 10th BPS period?
Normally in any wage revision there will have increase in wages of employees in settlement as well as to pensioners.Since only 2% increase is only effected under Basic Pay this time by IBA, in 10th BPS, pensioners those who retire w.e.f 1.11.2012 will have reduced pension while compared to 9th BPS.

The following illustration will give a broad idea on this negative impact under 10th BPS:

Nov-12 Nov-12 Shortfall
9th BPS 10th BPS
B.PAY 20100 32850
B Pension 10050 16425

DA 76.50% 7688.25 10.90% 1790.32
Total 17738.25 18215.32
Less 1/3 3350 5475
Net Pens 14388.25 12740.32 -1647.93

May-15 May-15 Shortfall
9th BPS 10th BPS
B.PAY 20100 32850
B Pension 10050 16425

DA 110.70% 11125.35 33.70% 5535.22
Total 21175.35 21960.22
Less 1/3 3350 5475
Net Pens 17825.35 16485.22 -1340.13

The very concept of pension updation is corresponding increase in pension in latest wage revision and where as under 10th BPS the impact of wage revision to pensioners is negative as illustrated above!.
Out of 15% increase if a major portion is added(instead of present 2%) to Basic pay,the present situation would not have been there for pensioners/employees .
Apart from injustice done to already retired persons without resolving their demands /issues by IBA under 10th BPS ,the negative impact will be affected to those who retire in future too!
Errors can be rectified(if one wish) but what about manipulations? That too against the senior and super senior citizens who built up the present day Banking system in our country!
It is right time for retirees to join together and continue the fight against the mighty forces behind these denial of genuine demands of retirees.Let it be GOI/MOF/IBA.Consistent efforts will yield results.Retirees are in action mode.
 

A.R.Chandrasekharan wrote at 22-05-2015 10:38 am:

 UFBU convenor Mr.M.V.Murali's statement
Dear Sir,

In one of the website Mr.Murali said that the issues relating to pensioners may be taken up SBI Association for settlement. Is it the way that the convenor should talk or write in black and white. If so, why not our Federation take up the issue with the Management and settle it instead of going to the courts and surrendering to the convenor who has fully cheating the pensioners.Even DA has not been released thoughh you also said that you know a month back that the Govt. approved DA for those who retired prior to 1.11.2002 but you had no authenticated information and it will be put on the web side at the appropriate time. AIBEA General secretary said that the issues were taken up of their own accord and no body requested them. How dare they are talking low of the pensioners issues though the serving staff will remain without retirement. Very bad way of treating the pensioners by the leaders who are also pensioners and every one now will become pensioner and will not a working staff till his death.
 

manotosh Samajpati wrote at 22-05-2015 7:15 am:

 error in reporting date under current news
Delhi High Court case has been reported on 19.07.2015, which is yet to come.
 
Comment: Dear Manotosh,

Thanks for pointing out. Age and typographical errors catching up with everyone. Apologies. Since rectified

R.Parthasarathy wrote at 22-05-2015 12:40 am:

 DA merger
Now that we know pension upgrading is not taken up under the 10th bipartite settlement, our Federation has to take up the case for merger of DA points 4440 for the existing pensioners. That will improve our pension level to some extent. Mr.Murali has said that this issue has already been discussed with the IBA. Let us be prudent. Mr.Murali has not ruled out possibility of some tangible benefits for us.
 
Comment: Dear Mr Parthasarathy,

We shall update news on this issue, as soon as we receive it.

dhanabalan (Website) wrote at 22-05-2015 12:31 am:

 pensioners plight
I had an occasion to express a view that we are poorly treated by even courts whether instigated by powers that be .Just now I read that unfortunately our case is postponed and will be dealt with a new bench. My family is unable to eat what our association writes in their magazines and we are unable to maintain reasonable standard of life. One of my friends has left for senior citizen home unable to meet the expenses. Are we responsible for such a situation.No 100 percent da, no updation, no actual payment to 7th bipartite retirees.Even for those who are retiring after nov 2012 ufbu cleverly avoided increase in pension. One of the writers has brought out the fact that we will be getting lesser p ension than a class IV employee of govt.Even the confederation formed last year has done nothing so far.
 
Comment: Dear Mr Dhanabalan,

Please do not sound so pessimistic and demoralise other pensioners. It is not true that our Pensioners' Associations or Federation or Confederation (not formed till now) has not done anything for the pensioners. They are trying their best. Let us hope that 7th Bipartite retirees' pension is first rectified, DR is given at 100% to pensioners retiring prior to Nov 2002, and updation process is initiated. Also Family pension is given to all at 30%, as this has already been done in RBI.

sudipta wrote at 21-05-2015 9:59 pm:

 medical tests
I liked to know if spouse of the pensioner can avail the annually limited free of costs medical tests or not ?
 
Comment: Dear Sudipta,

Please refer to our reply to your earlier mail, We are not aware of any annual limit of medical tests. You may get in touch with our Association's local representatives for further clarifications, if you wish to.

dhanabalan wrote at 21-05-2015 10:56 am:

 Medical tests
Annually once limited tests are made available free of cost with the approved labs
 
Comment: Dear Mr Dhanabalan,

There are no limitations to tests at approved labs, if prescribed by Bank's Medical Officer. It need not be restricted to once annually.

sudipta wrote at 21-05-2015 6:12 am:

 who can avail free of cost medical test ?
CAN WIFE OF PENSIONERS AVAIL FREE OF COSTS MEDICAL TESTS ?
 
Comment: Dear Sudipta,

Irrespective of whether a pensioner is a member of REMBS or not, he or she can avail of free consultation of doctors, and also free diagnostic tests at Labs having tie up arrangements with the Bank, on Bank's Medical Officer's advice, for self and spouse. Medicines can also be availed of from the Bank's Dispensaries, if prescribed by the Bank's Medical Officer.

dhanabalan wrote at 20-05-2015 11:24 pm:

 sbipensionersplight
One of the circle association issued insdtruction that we should support the the younger generation, I had the guts to write back we should not support until ufbu prove that they really intend takinf care of the pensioners. One of the retired leader having more than 50 per cent of ufbu now says with all adacity that everybody knows that all demands cannot be achieved. After getting our support now he says they did not place before the iba our case not because our leaders requested but out of generosity he did it. Now for the third time we are cheated and we face court proceedings with the money,political power. There is no system rtespecting the feedback
 
Comment: Dear Mr Dhanabalan,

We would prefer not to get involved in unnecessary controversies. We would also request you to kindly refrain from bringing up such issues in this website.

sabyasachi chattopadhyay, retired DGM wrote at 20-05-2015 10:23 pm:

 about recent court injunction
It is quite unfortunate that there is a fight and in fact a legal fight in the pensioners' association. Serving unions handle a lot of money and power of transfer-posting and their age is much below. Here members start union activities after the age of 60. I would request the Association to place copies of the plaint and the court order in the web site so that we can see the deyails and can talk to them to withdraw it or if there is merit we will talk to you for a resolution outside the court. This will not lead to contemt. You can discuss with our pleader. But I want early solution so that our association activities can run without any interruption.
 
Comment: Dear Sabyasachi,

We appreciate your sentiments. Bankers, and more so, pensioners, should not fight in courts, and should sort out differences of opinion across the table. Unfortunately, just two candidates took the election matter to the court. No notice was served on us, and an ex parte ad interim injunction of City Civil Court, stalled the election. Not a single hearing took place.
Happily, our Association sought the intervention of the High Court, which has now appointed two Joint Special Officers (Advocates) to conduct the 2014 - 2017 Governing Body election within 3 months. It is expected that the entire process will be completed under their supervision, within July, 2017.
Uploading the plaint and repiy, will only result in acrimony.

Anil K Saxena wrote at 20-05-2015 6:41 pm:

 circular
Now, it is learnt from the Federation that our court case No.1875/2013 in Delhi High Court has not come up for hearing on 19th also. The case may come up for hearing when the court reopens on 29th June 2015 after completion of summer vacation. The next date of hearing will be advised only when the Registrar of Delhi High Court will include our case in the ‘List’ in due course.

************************
A Good News for senior Pensioners & Family Pensioners who have completed or will complete 80 years of age on or after 1st July 2015 are being given one time 'lumpsum' amount as 'GOODWILL package' as mentioned in Bank's Circular letter No.CDO/PM/16/SPL/324 dt.11th May 2015.

 
Comment: Dear Anil,

You are right. Unfortunately, this bench is also getting dissolved. So a new bench will possibly hear our case after summer vacation.

dhanabalan wrote at 19-05-2015 4:17 am:

 sbipensionersplight
Can anybody enlighten me as to whethere there is a sipulation by iba that their bipartite settlement includes any benefit to pensioners. If not why our leadersa have been ssaying that our younger brothers will take cared znd we have been cheated for the paost nminimum three bipartite talks.
 
Comment: Dear Mr Dhanabalan,

We think that as long as Bipartite settlements involving working conditions of Bank employees are continue to be negotiated with IBA, the pension benefits, which still fall within the scope of trade unions, will also be decided upon by them. As and when a United Forum of Bank Pensioners, is set up for directly negotiating with IBA, we will have to depend on UFBU only, apart from informal efforts elsewhere.

BS Chahal wrote at 19-05-2015 1:12 am:

 10 BPS
I HAVE COME TO KNOW THAT OFFICERS UNIONS ARE GOING TO SIGN FINAL AGREEMENTS WITH IBA WITHOUT ANY SETTLEMENT ON RETIREES DEMANDS IF SO WHAT IS OUR FUTURE COURSE OF ACTION
 
Comment: Dear Mr Chahal,

The 10th Bipartite, when implemented, will benefit only 10th Bipartite retirees. The plight of earlier retirees can only be improved by the Govt, through IBA either at the instance of the Courts, or otherwise.

TApan Tarafdar wrote at 18-05-2015 11:07 pm:

 publishid book about RABINDRANATH TAGORR
I have written one book about RABINDRA NATH name NANA RUPE KABIGURU. Intersted reader may contact Tapan Tarafdar phone no 9434077490.book hasbeen aprised by very renowend person.
 

Jayakrishnan T.V. wrote at 18-05-2015 10:14 pm:

 SBI PENSIONERS' FEDERATION-Delhi High Court-W.P.(C) 1875/2013

I mention hereunder the message received from Shri P.P.S. Murthy, General Secretary of SBI Pensioners' Federation:

Our case was not taken up today also (19th May 2015). Afternoon the bench is not sitting. Our case may be heard after 29th June 2015 when Delhi High Court reopens after vacation.
 
Comment: Dear Mr Jayakrishnan,

We are as disappointed as thousands of pensioners all over the country, including you, are. about this unfortunate development. To make matters worse, it is unlikely that this same bench will hear our case.

KESHAV RAI SAINI (Website) wrote at 17-05-2015 11:50 pm:

 GOODWILL PACKAGE
FOR THE PERSONAL ATTENTION OF BANNERJI PRESIDENT PENSIONERS FEDERATION,
THE ABOVE ''GOODWILL PACKAGE'' WILL BENEFIT THE 5TH AND PART OF 6TH BIPARTITE RETIREES WHO RETIRED UPTO 1.07.1995 AND BANK HAD SENT A PROPOSAL TO GOVERNMENT IN SEPTEMBER 2013 FORI MPROVEMENT OF PENSION FOR5TH AND 6TH BIPARTITE RETIREES AND NOW TAKE UP NWITH THEBANK TO GET THATPROPOSAL BE APPROVED BY THE GOVERNMENT SOTHAT ALL THE 5TH AND 6TH BIPARTITE RETIREES WILL GET IMPROVED PENSION.KINDLY DO FOR THE OLD PENSIONERS.
K.R.SAINI
 
Comment: Dear Mr Saini,

We have conveyed your message to Shri Banerjee. We however feel that the goodwill package, as the name suggests, is just a goodwill gesture of the Bank towards very senior pensioners who have crossed the age of 80 years. The improvement of pension, specially for the old pensioners, is a separate issue, which has to be resolved separately.

Sujoy Ghosh (Website) wrote at 16-05-2015 10:02 pm:

 DHC case-1875/2013
This site has repeated the contents on a wrong subject head.The DHC case is a silver lining in an otherwise very dark cloud hovering over the 7th.BPs. If the order is in favour of the PenFed and is effective from the dates of retirement,it would wipe out all the woes and tears of the 7th.BPs. Sujoy Ghosh
 

Sujoy Ghosh (Website) wrote at 16-05-2015 9:57 pm:

 DHC case-1875/2013
Goodwill package-It is good as it goes,but a better arrangement would have been a medical package for the aged and the elderly because that is the need of the times with the rising medical expenses and the increasing needs of the ageing pensioners population.The bank could also consider setting up hospitals/nursing homes in the state capitals or to begin with at the four metro cities,of which 50% could be for the pensioners and such committee having pensioners's representatives by rotation.The geriatric population is ever increasing.Sujoy Ghosh
 
Comment: Dear Sujoy,

We appreciate and agree with the contents of your message, though the goodwill package or other such gestures are not linked with the Court case

Jayakrishnan T.V. (Website) wrote at 16-05-2015 4:00 am:

 SBI PENSIONERS' FEDERATION-Delhi High Court-W.P.(C) 1875/2013
The case is listed on 18th May 2015 as per Delhi High Court website - Regular Cause List of 18th May 2015. Let us pray for some positive and favourable development in our favour.
 

G.venkatachalam wrote at 16-05-2015 2:13 am:

 goodwill package
After discussion with the corporate body in Jan 2015, it is very gratifying that they announced a goodwill package. Taking into consideration the low number of early/voluntary retirees, their exclusion from the good will package need re-consideration on compassionate grounds and also the fact there will be very low % of retirees beyond the age of 80/90, Let benevolent wisdom prevail at the giving Corporate Body.
 

KESHAV RAI SAINI (Website) wrote at 15-05-2015 8:43 pm:

 DELHI HIGH COURT-FEDERATION CASE--W.P(C)1875/2013
IN RESPONSE TO SHRI V.S. SRINIVASON COMMENT DATED 15TH MAY,2015.ADVANCE CAUSE LIST DATED 18TH AND 19TH MAY,2015 THERE IS A NOTE''BEFORE THE MATTERS LISTED IN THE MAIN LIST(ADVANCE LIST) PASSED-OVER MATTERS IN THE SUPPLEMENTARY LIST WILL BE TAKEN UP''IT MAY BE POSSIBLE THAT OUR ABOVE CASE MAY REFLECT IN THE SUPPLEMENTARY LIST WHICH IS NOT REFLECTED IN THE WEB SITE OF DELHI HIGH COURT YET.
K.R.SAINI
 

v s srinivasan wrote at 15-05-2015 3:46 pm:

 Delhi High Court - Federation Case - 1875 of 2013
Sirs,

Advance cause list of Delhi High Court for 18th May 2015 & 19th May 2015 has been put up the Delhi High Court Web site. Our case do not find a place in the list. Whereas in last week the list per day contained nearly 200 pages, for this week list contains only 100 pages.

I think there are chances for additional list. If any of our colleagues come across any news, please inform. Let us hope for early hearing.
 

udayan dasgupta wrote at 14-05-2015 11:50 pm:

 why this goodwill package ???
In central Govt super seniors are rewarded full pension on attainment of their ages 90yrs and at their age of 80 yrs & 85 yrs provided pensions are 75% & 90%.
I think considering above facts our management is kind enough to provide us a goodwill package like this.thank u managemt!!
 
Comment: Dear Udayan,

Updation of pension every 10 years, if not at intervals of 5 years, and full pension at very senior age, is obviously a much better option. But a package, however delayed, and inadequate, is better than no package at all. Let us see how we can improve upon this package.

n.Subramanian (Website) wrote at 14-05-2015 6:17 pm:

 Good will Pacage.
For people retired from Bankin Industry how many are going to live for more than 80 years. You can just count them. Why this payment of lump sum depending on age. If they are alive that itself is a great thing and living more than 90 years will be really a blessing. Let the bank be magnanimous. Let the lump sum be Rs. 60000/ uniformly for all those who have crossed 80 years now as on the cut off date and rs.1.20 lac to all those who live beyond 90 years .Let the bank make the maximum entitlement under the package Rs. 1.20 lac. To explain if a retiree is in receipt of Rs60000 now after crossing 80 and live beyond 90 years he can be paid another Rs.60000/ This seems to be more reasonable. For the family pensioners the amounts can be fixed just half. The PENFED can take up the matter suitably with the Bank Management.
 
Comment: Dear Mr Subramanian,

Your proposed package is definitely better than the one offered by the Bank. But the Bank's package is an improvement on the NIL position prevailing till so far. Let us see how it can be further improved upon.

Sudhir Suman Kumaria (Chandigarh Circle) (Website) wrote at 14-05-2015 2:26 am:

 “GOODWILL PACKAGE” FOR SENIOR STAFF AND FAMILY PENSIONERS
The above package provides for the payment of a lump sum payment ranging from Rs.10, 000/- to Rs. 1, 20,000/- to pensioners aged 80 and above as on 1-07-2015 with varying amounts depending on their age. This package is also made eligible for family pensioners with a lump sum payment ranging from Rs.5, 000/ to Rs.60, 000/-.
The details of the above package made available can be view/download from SBI Pensioners’ Association (Chandigarh Circle) official website: http://www.sbipensionerschd.com/ Downloads.aspx
 
Comment: Dear Mr Kumaria,

Thanks for your update. The package is welcome, though very belated and inadequate, considering that is is a one time payment. But better inadequate and late, than never.

Anil k saxena wrote at 11-05-2015 8:42 pm:

  Continued - Latest Developments in respect of our W.P. No.1875 of 2013
continued
Order Dt.6-05-2015 passed by the court is given hereunder.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
W.P.(C) 1875/2013
FEDERATION OF STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS
 

Anil k saxena wrote at 11-05-2015 8:40 pm:

 Latest Developments in respect of our W.P. No.1875 of 2013
Federation has advised regarding our W.P.No.1875/2013, which is
being heard at Delhi High Court, that our application for change of
prayers made on the basis of SBI Employees' Pension Fund
Regulations 2014 has been allowed by the Hon'ble Judges at the
hearing held on 6th May 2015. The Advocates of the Union
Government, R.B.I and our Bank did not raise any objections on our
above application. The Judges have directed us to file an amended
W.P with our revised prayers within a week. There are no material
changes in our revised prayers. A copy of the order dated 6-05-2015 is
enclosed hereto for your information.
Our amended W.P will be filed by our Advocates within time limit
stipulated in the above order. Our W.P will continue to get listed under
Regular Matters for final hearing on every Monday and Tuesday. It
will be taken up within first five items, when Regular Matters are taken
up. After, the hearing of our above W.P. held on 8-04-2015 no Regular
Matter could not be taken up by the Judges as the Senior Judge was
engaged in the Special Bench daily in the afternoon. Although our
W.P would be listed on 11th and 12th of this month, our case may
not be taken up on these dates, in view of the time limit of one week
stipulated on 6-05-2015 for filing our amended W.P.
An important point which may be observed from the above order
dated 6-05-2015 of the Delhi High Court is the direction stating that
there is no need of counter affidavit because substantive
pleadings remain the same. We are therefore hopeful that our W.P
would be taken up for final hearing on 18th/19th/25th/26th of thismonth.
 
Comment: Dear Anil,

Welcome back to our website, after a long gap. We have given an update on this matter, giving the latest status of the case, on 6th May itself. You have added some more inputs. Thanks.

A.R.Chandrasekharan wrote at 11-05-2015 10:18 am:

 1875/2013 case at Delhi
Sir, as advised by you to Venkatachalam the Delhi High Court made it clear that Rule/Regulation No.23(1) is the base for calculation of pension and one example also worked out and accepted by the Bank through the advocate.(Shri Jaipuriar) It is very clear that Rule No.23(1) has been accpted by the Bank. Does this judgement not cover the prayer of 1875/2013. Secondly can the same judges give another Ruling on the same. Please advise.
 
Comment: Dear Mr. Chandrasekhasaran,

The case of the individual pensioner from Jharkhand, was for payment of pension to him alone, calculated on the basis of the average salary drawn. Our case is on a representative capacity, and covers pensioners of all Bipartites.

It is reasonably expected that the same Bench will also give a favourable verdict to us.

G>Venkatachalam wrote at 09-05-2015 10:44 pm:

 writ petition 1875/2013
I would request the administrator of this website,to put in a nutshell what is the prayer under this W.P and what is the effect on the SBI Pensioners.
 
Comment: Dear Mr. Venkatachalam,

The prayer made initially in Supreme Court, and due to be heard in Delhi High Court Div Bench, after being transferred from Supreme Court, is :
Pension to be paid @ 50% of last average salary drawn, s per Rule 23 (1) and deletion of Rule 23 (2) according to which different ceilings and different percentages ere being imposed.
This will benefit pensioners of all Bipartites and also those who are suffering on account of 40% and 50 % bifurcation.

KESHAV RAI SAINI (Website) wrote at 09-05-2015 5:22 am:

 W.P(C) 1875/2013
THE ABOVE NOTED COURT CASE HAS BEEN LISTED ON 11.05.2015 AT SERIAL NO 102 AT DELHI HIGH COURT AS PER WEB SITE OF DELHI HIGH COURT.
K.R.SAINI
 
Comment: Dear Mr Saini,

As we have already explained in our update on the matter, it will continue to figure in the Daily List, till it is heard.

Sujoy Ghosh (Website) wrote at 07-05-2015 10:29 pm:

 7th.BPs
Mr.Gopalakrishna Iyer-your post of the 6th.May 2015-The 7th.Bipartite settlement interalia signed by Mr.L Balasubramaniam as a member of the NCBE statesas under 'Restructuring Existing Pension Scheme'--....With effect from 01.11.19.1993,rise in pension ceiling from Rs.2400/ per month to Rs.4250/-per month after adjustment of DA..... .There is no mention of last 12 months basic pay wagera wagera.Thus after the sell out,the Bank/RBI/UOI in their wisdom are sticking to this epoch making 7th.Bipartite agreement.'Be Happy Don't Worry'In the normal course of attrition life will peter itself out!!Cheers,be cheerful and Hopeful and Be Happy.Sujoy Ghosh
 
Comment: Dear Sujoy,

Thanks for your post. You must be aware that the 7th Bipartite fiasco was initially an issue concerning all banks, but later all banks except SBI corrected the issue, though with effect from 1st May, 2005. Only our bank's pensioners are still suffering, for the last 13 years
Now that a favourable verdict has been pronounced in an individual case of a 7th Bipartite pensioner, by the same Div Bench of Delhi High Court, which is hearing our collective case, we are very hopeful of a favourable verdict which will benefit over 30,000 pensioners all over the country.

Sujoy Ghosh (Website) wrote at 07-05-2015 9:43 pm:

 7th.BPs.DHC-2353/2014-Jaipuriar case.-increase in pension-fitment
M.Tandon and Mr. Parthasarathy--Yourposts of the 7th.May 2015-Admin has reiterated the issue.The Banks lawyer will forward the DHC- Jaipuriar order thru' the LHO to Corporate Center who will the submit their reco. to the RBI and UOI after vetting by the Legal Dept. at Corp.Center.The Bank's Lawyer having conceded is one issue and the views of the Bank/RBI/UOI are another story.We do not know the background situation of the Bank's Lawyer's brief given by the Bank.Was it on the spur of the moment or did he have the Bank's sanction to concede or was it his legal interpretation.Let us wait and see.And the PenFed case at DHC and then SC will determine what is in store for us.Sujoy Ghosh
 

Gopal Ji Tandon (Website) wrote at 07-05-2015 7:36 pm:

 Revision of Pension


I appreciate the suggestions of Sri R Parthasarthi wrote on 6-5-2015. Since the Bank has already been conceded in Delhi High Court in case No.2353/2014 all the affected 7th bipartite pensioners can write to the Bank for revision as is done in the normal course. It is right time to claim our rites rite now.
 
Comment: Dear Mr Tandon,

Bank will not be able to pay without Govts concurrence. Govt will not yield without Courts direction. The bench which has given a favourable order in the individual case, is also hearing our collective case. Let us wait for the court to give a verdict. Letters to the bank will not help.

udayan dasgupta wrote at 07-05-2015 6:18 pm:

 commutation factor
I retired on 31st January 2007.As the Factor for Commutation was only 6.6.& strikingly low it has been revised to 9.81 in 9th Bipartite.Whether it will be applicable to 8th bipartite retirees too of course including me ?
 
Comment: Dear Udayan,

The commutation formula in our Bank is very unfair to the pensioners who wish to commute. Unfortunately, the factor prevalent at the time of retirement, will be applied to arrive at the commutation amount.

R.Parthasarathy wrote at 07-05-2015 5:35 pm:

 7th bipartite pensioners vis-a-vis Delhi HC case 2353/2014
Dear Mr.Sujoy Ghosh,
The Delhi HC judgment clearly says that the Bank's lawyer has conceded that the basic pension of Mr.Jaipuriar has to be revised on the basis of the revised pay as per the 7th bipartite settlement in respect of his last moth of service. When such a revision has been conceded, it is logically applicable to all the affected pensioners. The Bank will not appeal since it has already conceded. There is no ground for appeal since the Bank has conceded. Hence, we can write to the Bank asking for the revision enclosing a copy of the Judgment and our pension fixation letter. The request may be routed through the Concerned branch/Regional Office and may be addressed to the LHO (PPG Dept).
 
Comment: Dear Mr. Parthasarathy,

We feel and believe that letters to the Bank will not yield any result, and only a direction from the Court to the Govt. to give clearance to the Bank, can resolve the stalemate. The Bank cannot decide on its own, without the concurrence of the Govt.

Gopal Ji Tandon (Website) wrote at 07-05-2015 3:26 am:

 Delhi High Court case No.1875/20123
Delhi High Court Case W.P. 1875/2013
Please let us know as to what transpired in the above case on 6th & 7th May 2015
 
Comment: Dear Shri Tandon,

Hearing has not commenced in our case, on 6th May, but our amended prayer in view of the change of Pension Fund Rules into Regulations, has been accepted by the Court The matter will continue to figure in the Daily list, till it is heard.

Please go to the Current News page of this website, where we have already posted an update.

Jayakrishnan T V wrote at 07-05-2015 3:04 am:

 LIC CASE AT SUPREME COURT - 07/05/2015
I am sure that members are aware that LIC Pensioners' have filed a case against LIC regarding discrimanatory in payment of DA to them. They have got favourable orders at Rajasthan, Punjab and Haryana and Delhi High Court. As usual LIC management went on appeal to Supreme Court. After a long, very long wait it was heard today. Supreme Court ordered for payment of 20 % to all the affected persons with in a period of six weeks, irrespective of the fact whether they were petitioners or not. Full details will be known only when the written order of the court is released which is expected any time now.

It may also be noted that,the back ground of LIC pensioners case before Hon. SC is different and the above case need not have relevance to SBI Pensioners' demands
 

Sujoy Ghosh (Website) wrote at 06-05-2015 10:06 pm:

 7th.BPs- DHC - Jaipuriar case.2353/2014
7th.BPs-Mr. R.Parthasarathy--Your suggestion of the 6th.May 2015 is well said.On this I have shared with some others such as mr.Srinivasan,Mr. Pannicker and others of the neighbouring Circles that the Bank is unlikely to take a decision without the consent of the UOI/RBI, whether to comply or to appeal.Thus a wait of about 3 months may be necessary.You may like to offer your opinion on this.Sujoy Ghosh
 

< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 >


go to top